Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Note
This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Milestones achieved[edit]

April has been a month of achieving milestones here on English Wikisource.

  • On 1 April, we reached 33.33% mainspace pages with scan-backing.
  • On 10 April, we reached 500,000 pages proofread at least once.
  • On 19 April, we reached 200,000 pages validated (proofread at least twice).

The 200,000th validation was performed by User:CES1596 on Page:Great Neapolitan Earthquake of 1857.djvu/235. I have just awarded them a gold ribbon on their user page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Possible bot to determine relevant popular wikipedia pages[edit]

I know that there are bots in wikipedia which determine the number of times a given article is viewed per month. The bot(s) involved generate pages like w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. I wonder if there might be a way to request that bot, or some other bot, generate a similar list of the articles about either authors whose works are in the public domain and/or specific works which are in the public domain. If it were possible, maybe using such a bot to help decide which books to collaborate on here might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Categorization for authors born before 1900[edit]

Authors with missing death date but known birth date still automatically fall into the "Living authors" category, even if they are born in middle ages. There exist, by now, over 200 such "highlanders". I think authors born before 1900 or earlier than some years ago (e.g.{{{CURRENTYEAR}}}-120) should be automatically categorized as "Authors with missing death dates" and death year should be shown as "?", e.g. "1869—?". I'd add such option by myself, but I have no permission to edit the author template.--Nonexyst (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The author is shown as living if the death year is "missing", but not if "queried". So a question mark can be put in place of death year and it will work fine. Hrishikes (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that if the birth year is missing it categorizes them as Authors that were never born. Hmm. ;-) The Haz talk 04:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that placing a quotation mark can resolve the problem, but, as I wrote above, there are more than 200 "highlanders" born in 19th century in the "Living people" category and it takes much time to handle 'em manually, so I think the best way is to solve the problem automatically.--Nonexyst (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Long s template[edit]

Is a long s (ſ) template possible, which would be able to convert all lower case esses to a long s, except for the esses that are placed at the end of words in a given text. For example this text I'm working on Page:Cynegetica.djvu/56. If this whole text could be wrapped in a long s template and automatically convert the esses it would be a great help for people who prefer to keep the long esses in texts like myself. I use find and replace on another program to do it so far, one by one. Jpez (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall not pretend this approach isn't incredibly ugly nevertheless but {{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|I shall not pretend this approach is incredibly ugly nevertheless|s|ſ|plain=false}} |ſ |s |plain=false}}| $||plain=false}} produces I ſhall not pretend this approach is incredibly ugly nevertheleſs.

(Result is coloured green merely for emphasis of output.) Is this anything like what you were looking for? AuFCL (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice I played around with it a bit, if it is possible to keep the small s in the following situations it will be perfect.{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|Cheers. Cheers, Cheers! Cheers? Cheers-Cheers— etc.|s|ſ|plain=false}} |ſ |s |plain=false}}| $||plain=false}} produces Cheerſ. Cheerſ, Cheerſ! Cheerſ? Cheerſ-Cheerſ— etc. Jpez (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to do this, I think it's wise to keep the original with the standard s and create a second copy with ſ. Readability should be above trying to match typesetting and even native English speakers will have trouble with it. Never mind that we're also trying to cater to an audience that may not read English that well to begin with. Plus, there are just so many exceptions to when it is used in practice, and I second that it looks ugly. The Haz talk 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that's a terrible idea; no need to reduplicate whole documents. Personally, I don't think long-s is worth keeping most of the time, except for earliest editions of certain high-profile works, such as those by Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, and Locke. But where it is kept, and matches the original, then that should be the primary effort. If someone would like to create a second "annotated" version that modernizes the orthography, then we're working on policy that would permit this to happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
My point exactly. Thank you, The Haz talk 20:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh? The second part of my comment is the opposite of what you said, so I'm not sure what you mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Such a template is inappropriate. If you feel the long-s is content to be transcribed, then you need to transcribe it; editors need to be able to fix a one character error in the transcription by changing one character, not by making some magic change to some magic code. If you want to insist on adding a stumbling block for our readers in the name of fidelity, you need to make sure you're actually being faithful to the original and make it easy for editors to fix errors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with some of the comments saying the long s is ugly. I think we're just not used to it and also which font is being used plays a role. Personally I'd like to read a text with the original long s since it takes you back to the time when it was actually used exclusively, it adds a flavor to the text that shows exactly how old it really is. It takes a bit of getting used to but it's not that difficult to read if you get accustomed to it. Also I believe that we should be as faithful to the original as possible and use any ligatures or special characters available to transcribe the text as it actually was written. So I understand what Prosfilaes is saying and since it was brought up, I think we can be as faithful to the original using the typography that was used then and also being able to convert the long esses for any readers that would prefer to use modernized typography if possible.
As a lay reader, I think Wikisource should be more friendly to the lay readers, for whom, the text of the ancient works are more interesting than the ancient orthography. Ancient orthography is mainly for researchers, who won't depend on a transcribed text anyway. If Wikisource is to become appealing to the common people, who constitute the mainframe of any reader base, the layouts and typography should be something the lay reader is comfortable with. If the reader needs to get "accustomed" to some archaic style which has no modern relevance in his other readings, then why would he become interested? Long s, ligature letters (f + i/l/f) etc. are things of a bygone era, why are we burdening ourselves with these? If truthfulness to typography is so much required, then why are we not incorporating paragraph indenting and curly quotes? Hrishikes (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The fi ligature is not the thing of a bygone era; it is the right thing to do in English typography. But when I see, e.g. "Can not find my book (PediaPress)" above, I see an fi ligature, one that disappears when I cut and paste it into this edit box. Because in a proper system, ligatures are composed automatically by the display layer and are transparent at the character level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I don't think the long s is "ugly" either. It is fanciful and looks very nice to me. I like it. I was born and raised in Virginia, 1st successful colony of "Mother England" and the fanciful long s is used on places where delight to the eye (perhaps confusion to the mind for outsiders) is often used. Virginia was and remains much the same as England in many ways. —Maury (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it was ugly; I said that it was a stumbling block to the readers. If you want to read a text that looks like the original, that's what the scans are for. It probably breaks most screen readers, helping blind users get back to the days when they had to have help to read books.
Do not use the ligatures. They are deprecated compatibility characters that aren't well supported and don't form a complete set and Unicode actively rejects any plans to expand the set of ligatures. If you want to see ligatures, set your font for Wikisource to one that automatically ligates. If you want to see the exact ligatures in the original text, use a scanned copy, or make a re-typeset facsimile (there are reasons why those have dropped out of fashion since accurate cheap photographic reprints, but as you will). Don't try to do it in something that uses Wiki markup and turns it into HTML; those are the wrong tools for the job. The long-s at least has a shadowy existence as more than typography, even if it's less than a real letter; the ligatures are merely typography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Long s has been a topic around here before, and it is in the archives of this page for those who wish to dig. The outcome of that/those discussion/s are:

  1. The template {{long s}}/{{ls}} can be used in the Page: ns, where it transcludes to 's' in the main ns;
  2. There is no requirement to use the template, and feel free to put 's';
  3. Except with works where it is integral to the work then it can be typeset with the character for transclusion to the main ns.

In short, those who wish to play with it can do so, but we don't impose it on our viewers, and for those who are transcribers please note that you will limit those who will assist with your proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

An example of a work where it would be used is Index:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu which is a work where I got bored adding it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, I was referring to long s looking ugly in our font, not in general. I think that's what other people were referring to as well. I actually read many works from the 1700s in their original form with long s (and find them gorgeous), so I have absolutely no problem with it. As I noted above, I think the accessibility of text is more important to the individuals we're trying to reach with this website though. Also, since my other message obviously wasn't clear, I of course do not think there should be two versions of the text simply because of this. However, the OP seemed determined to have a long s version without using the current methods of templates already in existence so it was a last resort suggestion. The Haz talk 14:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Help[edit]


After Action Report 770th FA[edit]

I have in my possession, what I believe to be an authenic after action report, dated 21 August - 30 Sept 1944. My father, Robert F Williams was a T/Sgt in said unit.

I am wondering what, if anything, this report is worth.

If anyone sees this...please email me at:

    umberadoATcomcast.net

David Williams 23 January 2015 (UTC)

US copyright for non US works, some questions[edit]

Hi to all!

Sorry for my not very well Engilsh, but maybe somebody can help me providing with information on US copyright laws:

There is one unclear for me point on applying US copyright and copyright terms to non-US literary works (more precisely — to Russian / Soviet works), concerning URAA's restoration of copyrights for foreign works. The point is:

Let's suppose that we examine copyrights of some literary work which falls under conditions:
1) the work was first published out of the US;
and 2) the work has never been published in the US (so it was not published in the US during 30-day period following the publication date, as well);
and 3) the work was still under copyright in its home country as of the URAA date (1/1/1996 in the case of Russia, and many other countries);
and finally 4) It was published in its source country without copyright notice, and the publication was in the period when such notice was required in the US to establish the copyright

The question is: did this work fall under US copyright because of copyright restoration according URAA? And if yes — what term is applied for US copyright protection? As I've understood, the missing copyright notice does not prevent the copyright restoration, and at any case, any restored work is granted copyright protection despite missing US copyright notice and/or US copyright renewal (even if such renewal was required in the case of any US work). Am I right? Or I am wrong, and missing copyright notice makes obtaining US copyright to fail, and so far — the work is PD in US now? (and we can freely use it in the Wikimedia projects?)

Also please help to figure out copyright issues for following two cases:

  1. Some Soviet author published his work at 1931 year, the work was published without copyright notice. Years passed, and the author died in the USSR in the autumn of 1941 year. According to the Russian Civil Code, this work is under Russian copyright until 2015 year (inclusive), and enters PD in the 2016 year. The work was under Russian copyright on the URAA date 1/1/1996. The work has never been published (and has never been registered copyright) in the US, and so it has never got any copyright renewal. The questions: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have?
  2. Some Soviet author died at 1931. Some work of this author was firstly published only in the 1944 year (PMA). According to the Russian Civil Code, this work was under Russian copyright until 2014 year (inclusive), and entered PD this (2015) year. The following details are the same as in the previous case: the work was under RF copyright on 1/1/1996; in has never been published and never been registered copyright in the US. The questions are the same: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have? --Nigmont (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like both will be 95 years after publication from your description. Reading material Cornell copyrightbillinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! --Nigmont (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a 'pedantic' note (that might be worth mentioning), the described works would have been in the public domain in the US 'pre-URAA' not due to a failure to comply with the formalities, but due to a 'lack of national eligibility' at the time of publication... the Soviet Union was not a party to any international copyright treaties until 1973 (when they joined the UCC), so purely 'Soviet' copyrights were not recognized under international law before that time. Revent (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for too late reply.
Revent, it would be good if you were right (I might put to Wikisource many works if so), but I am afraid that you are wrong. I think that 'eligibility' of the country is determined as of current status of copyright treates established between the US and the country, but not as of date where the work was firstly published. So it does not matter whether the Soviet Union was eligible on the date of publishing, but it does really matter that the Russia (the legal successor of the Soviet Union) is definitely an eligible party for US as of current status.
Moreover, the URAA act clearly states that the lack of the national eligibility is one of the conditions for 'copyright restoration' of foreign works - see Title V, SEC. 514. RESTORED WORKS, paragraph "(h) DEFINITIONS.", subparagraph "(6) The term restored work means an original work of authorship that", and following:
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to ...
(iii) lack of national eligibility;...
So it seems that the US copyright term for such works is 95 years, the same as for US works having copyright notice and renewal. --Nigmont (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont: I was not attempting to say that they are not possibly eligible for restoration under the URAA, what I was pointing out was that they actually would fall under the criteria you noted, "lack of national eligiblity", instead of the criteria "failure to comply with the formalities". For a work from a source nation that was not a 'treaty partner' at the time of publication, but later became an 'eligible country', the lack of compliance with the formalities is irrelevant.... a Soviet work from the 1930s or 1940s would not have have had it's copyright recognized in the United States, even if it was published with a copyright notice that met the requirements of various international treaties, because the Soviet Union was not a party to those treaties at the time. That the Soviet Union decades later joined the UCC would not have granted those works 'retroactive' recognition, only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. Revent (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: sorry for my mistake: I misunderstood your first comment here and wrongly assumed that you meant that those works should not be restored copyright in the US under URAA definitions. Now I understand that you really told some other things, thanks for your clarification now.
But nonetheless IMO you are not quite right when you said in your second reply: only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. I think that those works should be considered as not potentially but definitely restored with URAA (except cases when a work is a pre-1923 publication). At least, IMO, this point should be believed regarding the possibility of exposing those works to Wikisource which (similarly to all other Wikimedia projects) is more prone to 'copyright-paranoia' than to 'copyright-boldness'. So IMO these works should be believed as not in PD and so they may not be published on Wikisource on PD terms. See also link Status of the "rule of the shorter term" in the US (I found this in the multilingual Wikisource). --Nigmont (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my use of the word 'potentially' was quite deliberate, in order to avoid making a (possibly controversial) assertion that the URAA applied to a specific work without looking at the details of that work.. URAA arguments are unfortunately common and heated on Commons. I do agree that, particularly for a work to be on Wikisource, it should have a copyright clearance that 'positively' establishes that it is PD (and not restored), rather that assuming that things are PD unless proven otherwise. The URAA should be interpreted to apply to 'classes' of works based on their age and origin, unless demonstrated otherwise, instead of assumed to not apply unless someone can argue that it does. Revent (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont:
In 1996, when URAA came into force, Russia had 50-year copyright term, or 54-year for authors who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it, so works of authors who died before 1942 (worked during or participated in the war) or before 1946 (not worked and not participated) in it are in Public Domain in the US. The retroactive copyright term extension in Russia did not affect the copyright protection in the US. So in the both cases You listed the works are PD in the US, if in the second case the author was not posthumously rehabilitated after the work was published. In that case, the copyright term should be counted from the date of rehabilitation.
На 1996 год, когда URAA вступило в силу, в России срок защиты авторских прав составлял 50 лет (или 54 для авторов, работавших в период ВОВ или участвовавих в ней), следовательно, работы авторов, умерших до 1942 года (работавших/участвовавших в ВОВ) или до 1946 года (не работавших и не участвоваших) перешли в общественное достояние на территории США. То, что сроки в России были продлены на 20 лет ретроактивно, не затронуло статус произведений в США. Поэтому в обоих случаях произведения находятся в общественном достоянии в США, если во втором случае автор не был реабилитирован посмертно после публикации произведения — тогда срок защиты авторских прав следует считать с даты реабилитации автора.--Nonexyst (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: yes, you are quite right, thank you for reminding. Carl Lindberg has already explained this, but thanks to you whatever.
For purpose of avoiding confusing future readers of this topic, I should make such remarks. In in the cases 1 and 2 described at the start of this topic, I wrongly declared that those works were under Russian copyright on the URAA date 1/1/1996. Really, as Nonexyst described above (and as Carl Lindberg had described previously on the other page) these works were in PD in Russia on that date. To keep the cases to be actual and informative, I could make such changes to formulating of them:
  • 1-st case description should be corrected: the author died not in the 1941, but in the 1942 year (or later) and fought (or worked) for Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War; or died in the 1946 year or later;
  • 2-nd case description should be corrected: the work was first published in the USSR not in the 1944 but in the 1946 year or later.
After these corrections, the cases would remain actual and the answers given by Billinghurst and Revent would remain correct and true (taking in account the clarifications which have been provided during discussion).
По-русски: Nonexyst, спасибо за напоминание! Хоть Карл Линдберг и объяснил уже это на другой странице, но всё равно спасибо, хотя бы потому, что данную тему нужно было уточнить, чтобы не вводить потом в заблуждение тех, кто будет её читать.
Остальное на русский переводить не буду — думаю что то, что я выше написал по английски, вы поймёте. :) И ещё раз спасибо! --Nigmont (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: @Nonexyst: the only thing where you are not right (sorry for I didn't noticed this while I did my first reply) is that the extension of copyright terms due the rehabilitation is not respected by US copyright laws — Carl explained this as well (see in his reply which I linked above). --Nigmont (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont: It is true for rehabilitations occurred in 1996 and on, rehabilitations between 1946 and 1995 made the works protected by copyright at the time of the URAA date, so their copyrights were restored by URAA.--Nonexyst (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: as far as I know, the article(s) about rehabilitation came first with the 4-th part of the Russian Civil Code, this part was enacted on 18.12.2006 and didn't exist on the URAA date 1/1/1996. See Russian Federal Law 18.12.2006 № 231-ФЗ (in the Russian Wikisource). Do you know about older laws and articles about rehabilitation, which were enacted in Russia on the URAA date? --Nigmont (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont:No, I did not know exact date when the law on rehabilitations came into force. Thanks for clarifications.--Nonexyst (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How would you create a table of contents for The Philosophical Review[edit]

I've had a go at proofreading Volume 12 because I wanted to read an article in it... Any ideas for formatting the table of contents? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The scans strongly resemble the layout used for the List of Illustrations in our current Proofread of the Month. Similar markup to what is used there should work well. Pathore (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks neat. Can you tell me where the help page for the markup is? like- float right and dtpl, dotend, djvupageoffset, and djvupage- so I can have an idea what I am doing? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
See {{dotted TOC page listing}} and {{float right}}. Hrishikes (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The preview display has list of "templates used in this preview" below the edit box. Each template link there points to the documentation for that template. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked and the templates weren't listed? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The template list only appears in preview mode, not in plain edit mode. If you don't have the "show preview on first edit" preference checked, you might need to use the "show preview" button. If it's still not there (and isn't somewhere else on the page), then I don't know what preference you have different from my settings. Also, sorry about overlooking this earlier. Pathore (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Do I rearrange things for the index page so that the pages are listed in order? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No, preserve the original order. The text should match the scan. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant for the Volume Index page - as done for Popular Science Monthly? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are asking. If it was transcribed, it should match the scan. If you're referring to making a list of volumes, then those should be in numerical order, I think. If you mean the Table of Contents on the Index: page, then I don't actually know. I've always built the Index: TOC by transcluding text from the relevant Page:s, which would make it match the original order. This seems like less work right now (get both those pages and a TOC for the index at once) and a sorted TOC can always be made later, if needed. Pathore (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The dotted TOC has been working very well, thanks, but I have a problem with articles that have 2 pages listed e.g. Laurie, S. S. 364, 590 Any suggestions? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try {{nowrap}}. Moondyne (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl Will have to fix those 2 links after transclusion, they'll need to be hard linked using the "pagetext (3)" parameter.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Should I leave a marker like {{Missing link}}? Which doesn't exist?? --Zoeannl (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: For 2 pages listed in a TOC line, the dotted TOC template is quite sufficient. See the list of illustrations at Researches on Irritability of Plants. Hrishikes (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just what I need, but I can't figure out how it works.
Ah no.. They aren't links. To be left til transclusion.--Zoeannl (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed it. The djvupage= and dvjupageoffset= parameters are for convenience in the common case. For multiple pages on one TOC entry, use the pagetext= parameter and the {{DJVU page link}} template. Pathore (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting Entry text because the article title includes 7+5=12 here. Quite beyond me. Help please. — Zoeannl (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. When need to put an '=' inside a template, you have to replace it with {{=}} for it to work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

what happens when index file is changed?[edit]

A hypothetical but realistic question: what are the guidelines or protocol for changes to source djvu or PDFs on Commons? Say for instance a document is missing a page or two (as I've encountered on some Google Books PDFs), and/or contains missing images or incorrectly ordered pages, or if I just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed? If such a file is indexed, and then overwritten by a new, better version, what happens? Does a new index need creation? Must the new file include the same number of pages? Similarly, what's the procedure for "Frankenstein" articles, that for instance draw from 2 or more different sources (e.g. a djvu missing a cover image and title page supplemented with a cover .jpg and single page.)? Animalparty (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rule 1: for a new Index always check the file for missing images or incorrectly ordered pages before starting proofreading.
In case an old Index, if you realize something is wrong, fix the file by inserting/removing the missing pages, newly upload the source file, adjust the pagelist and move the Page:yyy.djvu/n pages as needed. If they are many, ask for a bot request, specifying your needs. See e.g. Wikisource:Bot_requests/Archives/2014#Picturesque_New_Guinea_Bulk_Moves. No new Index pages needed, but transclusions in Main ns and all links affected by the move need to be updated.
If you just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed, just upload the new file. But make sure number and position of the pages is unchanged.
Hope it clarifies a bit.--Mpaa (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How can this page be re-created ?[edit]

I was just editing or creating this page and received the response below:

The revision #0 of the page named "Page:History of the Press in Western New York (1847).djvu/35" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log."

I don't see anything in the deletion log. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong item. How can this page be re-created ? Thanks

Robin2014 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any problems now and can open the page, which I see you were able to save before you posted here. If you're still having problems, I suggest clearing your cache. Doing so often solves this sort of database niggle. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent ! Thanks. Robin2014 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images needed[edit]

Hi, I'm almost finished proofreading this book, but adding the missing images is beyond my capabilities. Can someone lend me a hand? Thanks in advance. Xaviersc (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to do that. Give me a few minutes... --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Xaviersc (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Stacked images[edit]

I'm using {{img float}} templates (mostly), but where closely-spaced images are aligned on one side of a page, these are not transcluding at all well, being shifted to the right of the previous image and leaving boxes of blank space. See Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley/Pethá - any suggestions on improving the appearance of this chapter would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing the shifts you describe, but not the space. When I hit this problem, I tend to ignore the original layout and see if I can come up with something better when transcluded. One of the things I would do with this example is reduce the size of Fig 11. It's longer than the screen on my laptop. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I've reduced the image size, and juggled the other images, and it's looking much better now - at least on my laptop screen. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Centering of tables[edit]

I've noticed while viewing some texts I've added on an android tablet in mobile mode that the tables I've added aren't centered. The contents here is an example. In the main namespace it is shown on the left on the mobile device. Is there a way to fix this? unsigned comment by Jpez (talk) .

The table on that page isn't centered, and only some of the rows are. To centre a table, the align="center" command needs to be on the first line. See the tables on Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/613 for examples. That said, mobile mode does behave differently to desktop mode in some things, and this might be one of those. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I tried align="center" and nothing changed. I also had a look at other books and the problem exists there too so I guess it's an issue with mobile mode. I also notice images are also aligned to the left. Jpez (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's the mobile page that's having difficulties, as even on my labtop it isn't centered. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You still have some options: style="margin:0 auto 0 auto;" and the less elegant <center></center> enclosure. — Ineuw talk 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
PS. Sorry, forgot this one margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto;— Ineuw talk 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, neither work, you can try messing around with it using the mobile link --Rochefoucauld (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This is unquestionably a kludge and simply points to an issue with the global CSS @George Orwell III: but margin-right:auto !important; margin-left:auto !important; works here. I leave it to others to apply the appropriate Final Solution. 58.166.69.222 23:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Unfortunately, the mobile mode css does not automatically inherit the desktop view css files or settings -- be they site-wide or personal (for the most part that is). The Mobile front-end development people need to be consulted as to how to rectify this without stepping all over what they have planned. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthypophora (and Relatives)[edit]

Can I create this page? (source) I have created it as a txt file but have not yet submitted it to Wikisource. (It is also a dead link referenced here) —User 000 name 08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it a Public Domain source? I've tried the links you give, but they're dead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Author:Horatio Gordon Hutchinson and Author:Horace Hutchinson[edit]

might well be the same person, but the information given is disjoint. Can anybody confirm that the expert in Golf and the author of "A friend of Nelson" are identical? -- Gymel (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. I've merged their author pages and data items. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me, please[edit]

Dear project members, I ask You to help properly execute translations of articles from scientific journals into English (On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)), and other. Perhaps the best way to help me is to give me (very inexperienced project member) a reference to a similar and well-documented translation of a document so I can use it as an example. Thank You. AlexChirkin (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks reasonably good to me, albeit with a few errors here and there, but your English is certainly better than my Russian. Unfortunately, I suspect that we don't have very many translators in our community and I don't know of any examples to point out for you. I'll watch the page that you linked; feel free to ask questions either on its talk page or here. Pathore (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
After looking around a bit more, I found a proposed guideline for translations. It seems that we have a Translations: namespace, for works translated on Wikisource. Are these translations published elsewhere or are the translations original to Wikisource? Pathore (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of a wrong djvu page image?[edit]

This page has the right text but the wrong djvu image, which is the duplicate of This page. I just uploaded a .jpg copy of the correct page.. How does one go about removing the wrong page and inserting this? — Ineuw talk 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This has happened before; the system is still caching all the "common" widths of the previous image for some reason. If you tick the image tab from the Page: namespace, the current & correct page image shows up (at its full width). Change that image to 1024px in the address field and the old image comes back.

As far as I know - there is little we can do about except wait, keep checking back every so often & hope the caching catches up with the latest image sooner rather than later.

Maybe @Mpaa: knows another way thru py or the api itself? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have found something interesting here. At that page in the File: namespace, there is a list of "other resolutions", corresponding to 145, 290, 363, 464, and 619 pixels wide. All are correct. The offending image on Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 32.djvu/661 is 1024 pixels wide. Could it be that the software has somehow "forgotten" that the 1024 pixel version is supposed to exist? Pathore (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. In fact I forgot about Mpaa telling me the same thing with another page which corrected itself. Sorry to have jumped. — Ineuw talk 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems ok now. How about you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be fixed here. Pathore (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannot access wmflabs from the link on the index page[edit]

Cannot access wmflabs from the link Popular Science Monthly Volume 32 on the index page. — Ineuw talk 22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Its probably something on their end (the Book2Scroll tool works for verification's sake). I wouldn't know where to begin to report something like this... anyone? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help changing the title[edit]

I created an article for a poem by the Peruvian poet Cesar Vallejo but the title of the page doesn't have the right capitalization for English poem titles. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_black_heralds Can someone explain to me how to do this?

Yes check.svg Done . Wikipedia has a guide on how to do this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in the Translation namespace?— Mpaa (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to (Re-)OCR a page[edit]

This page [1] has very poor OCR. Can someone kindly provide a better OCR? The page is bilingual: English and French. --Siddhant (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

File:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf[edit]

The license tag on this needs updating... suggested new tag? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikisource.org: (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-10[edit]

16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Implications of changes[edit]

@George Orwell III: Looking at the section link aspect, is there anything that is going to impact (positively or negatively) or in the "lessons learnt" space from this/ I note the discussion at mw:Requests for comment/Clickable section anchors. I also note that this hits us with the imminent release. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the weather most of last week so, while I was curiously monitoring this particular development string previously, the brain fart since has left me out of the loop when it comes to the current state of affairs. I will endeavor to "see" what's up on this front over on test2.wikipedia.org which hosts a rudimentary version of our namespaces and the PR extension later tonight - hopefully this change is already live there. I'll touch back afterwards (and nobody is preventing anyone from starting without me either). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: See https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headings#top The new "section anchor link" should appear when your mouse hovers to the right of a section title.

I can see the first possible pitfall already - the new anchor "eats" even more of the left-hand gutter/margin where the embedded page-links in dynamic layouts usually reside. If it does, we can start thinking about a collapsing side-bar (or even better -- something lightbox-ish) and build a permanent "gutter" to host everything from sidenotes to pillcrow markers to embedded pagenum links and anything else you can think of. That way, we might actually gain usable screen-space in the end in spite of any possible new elements taking up more screen-space. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We tend not to utilise section headers in our transcriptions, so I think that the actual impact will be minimal for the number of works, though where someone has used sections, it will have the impact as you note. Sounds like we need to hear more about their next skin and make sure that there is a consideration for Proofread Page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a growing issue as HTML5 expands the h1 thru h6 scheme. Eventually, these new heading elements (header, footer, aside, nav & the rest along with the existing 6) will be just as commonly used as the current h1 thru h6 scheme. So the current practice of centering a div for chapter headings is going to come back and bite us in that aspect as well as a few others. IOW; we should have been manipulating the h2 thru h6 tags to do stuff like that at some point (eliminating the need of adding an anchor template to such centered-div chapter headings would have been likely with the advent of this latest refinement for example).

And as far as the "next" skin goes -- just switch to Mobile Mode from your desktop and you can get a good idea of where they are looking to go with the "next generation" of skins. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I’m showing display options frozen as a black link. is this the reason? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah. That's just me trying to turn Dynamic Layouts into a gadget. It worked for me -- until you mentioned this & then I tried without logging in -- then I got a static label too. So it's reverted.

Anybody know how to identify the module dependencies being used for running MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks, (works again) i don’t know if gadgetification is improvement; i haven’t figured out how to get ocr button back. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that -- and with all due respect -- everybody who invested some editing time to work through a dozen or so steps has resolved their issue by now. Some of those solutions are somewhere above by now & as well as still on my talk page.

And "Gadgetizing" the 3 or 4 remaining "hard" scripts is a necessity for keeping the future possibilities for us open. Plus Common.js does not utilize the ResourceLoader like the gadget extension does (& that is primary reason for porting over). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

hi, i see that page links on display option are black again. you of course understand how it is disruptive, if editors are trying to transclude pages into articles. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're the only one this time - re-worked it last night & its working here. Need some more feedback at least (Browser & Operating system). Anyone else? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content[edit]

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: The English Wikisource also has a regular Proofread of the Month. We select a work (or works) specifically written by a woman to be proofread each August. Works by women can be proofread in other months as well, but for August we ensure that the voice of female authors is included in the rotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, last time I checked Wikisource was actually quite good for gender balance. Not quite 50:50 but better than most of its sister projects. The only one that was consistently better was Wikiquote. Not to knock the campaign; just an interesting piece of information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan:, I'm curious, where did you get this info? It seems that the research around this always has a challenge in identifying people's gender, and in determining the criteria for being a "regular user" etc. (My instinct is that you're right -- it seems like there are plenty of women here, compared the other projects I work on -- but I'm curious about the source.) -Pete (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Example gendergap chart
@Peteforsyth: It was based on a chart on Tool Labs ("gender gap / edits"; which appears to be down at the moment). It wouldn't stand up as rigorous science but it can give an indication. I believe it is based on individual recorded edits and the declared gender of the user (via user preferences). When it is working it looks like the screenshot example to the right (Wikisource is the purple line). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with trying to determine the actual number(s) for gender make-up starts with the lack of the User: preference setting. Easy way to see if it's set is to use the magic word to check...
  • {{gender:Peteforsyth|he|she|unset}}, unset
  • {{gender:George Orwell III|he|she|unset}}, he
One of the things we could do/should do in order to improve upon this (& some other Preference related issues) is make April's monthly maintenance focus a User: housekeeping-centric one. We can make sure folks visit their settings every so often & setting gender could be highly recommended or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the specifics, @AdamBMorgan: and @George Orwell III:. I'm reluctant to sign onto the notion of "highly recommending" this setting -- I have no problem with people choosing one or the other, but I think the pros and cons are too extensive, and too varied for different people, and I'm not so comfortable with the notion of making a sweeping recommendation like that, at least without substantial accompanying information to inform a decision. In my case, I simply have an aversion to putting personal information out there in a structured, machine-readable way. I sometimes do it, but my default is to avoid it. I'm sure many of my family members are irritated that I haven't formally acknowledged on Facebook that they are my brother, cousin, etc. But I simply don't see the benefit to me (or to my family members) of giving that information away in structured format.
With gender on Wikipedia, I think it is a given that the vast majority of people will not choose to enter this info. Perhaps a major software-based effort (like, a big dialog box that strongly requests the information) might change that, but I hope we won't go down that road. I think the reality is that genuine gender-oriented research in the Wikimedia world will need to use social techniques for gathering information, rather than computer-assisted techniques. It's a pain, but I don't see me sharing my info as a viable step toward changing that.
OK, that was a lot, but hey…you used me as an example…so I think I deserve to have my say ;) -Pete (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
In another place & time -- I'd be of like mind believe it or not. Unfortunately, I think "we" pretty much showed our hand when we went with Pete, George & Adam in our respective User: name selections during account creation. IMHO, User: name recognition is just as "machine" detectable in this day and age as the gender preference setting is believed to be.

With that in mind, I figured there was little, if anything, to be gained by not setting it and maybe others in the same "boat" will reach the same conclusion if any subsequent recommendation is framed in a similar fashion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The amount of littering on my street, and in my neighborhood, is astonishing to me. I've lived here a couple years, and never seen a place where it's such common practice to toss every piece of trash to the wind without a thought. Still, I don't participate. My tossing the occasional soda can aside would make no significant negative difference; in fact, it would surely be quickly claimed by a recycler. Still, I choose not to participate. Not primarily because it would make a difference to the community, but because it makes a difference to me. -Pete (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's fine be me. Nevertheless, the original point remains; development planning is woefully handicapped by the lack of accurate data and this gender profile issue is but one of the many existing problems with using preference settings for sampling purposes. I'm only advocating for better sampling thru more proactive User: participation. In this case, I'm basically encouraging periodical reviews of User's own preference settings and is something we should consider formalizing to some degree imho. Those who are not aware of the setting in question might improve the numbers related to this discussion as a result. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed -- and my core response remains as well; show me a plan that will substantially change those numbers -- i.e., there is reason to believe a statistically significant number of people will begin self-identifying to an extent that is actually useful to researchers -- and I will take notice, strongly consider changing my own practice, strongly consider signing onto the kind of recommendation you suggest. But in the absence of a solid theory of how it will be successful, I am skeptical. -Pete (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘

Well, I really don't know how to assure you something like that actually takes place in the end (mostly because we only have control over this project among the hundreds of wikis out there). We do know the latest data in the chart linked above is ~2 years old and a bit obtuse for our needs here so the logical first step in a series of steps to follow would be to better ascertain the current status of that Preference setting for a fixed sampling (i.e. relatively recent and/or active contributors) as a baseline -- This needs someone knowledgeable with py or the API to get done. After that, its all uncharted territory where the previously mentioned formal Monthly Maintenance task is but one approach to test. Whatever we decide to try will then need to be re-sampled to see if we managed to improve our own numbers or not. In short, the entire endeavor does not seem promising at face value but we can't be certain unless we try. The alternative is far less democratic.

The usual way they manage to "induce" Users to [re]visit their Preference settings of late is to add, remove or modify some aspect or behavior tied to a setting or settings and then "break" something (intentionally, unavoidably or otherwise) related to that aspect or behavior. Once normal or expected operation is disrupted for Users and the "fix" remedying it hinges on x, y &/or z being done in one's Preferences, the changes are adopted pretty quick and without debate by the relevant User: group or groups (again, recently active contributors). Users who haven't logged in for months if not years, however, will stay "broken" until they also do the same. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is even slightly germane to anybody's purposes but as evidenced here, out of 144238 current enWS user-ids registered (no idea how many blockees and auto-non-editing-registrations from sister projects that may include?) 366 have declared as females, and 1475 as male. AuFCL (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that very interesting link, @AuFCL:. @George Orwell III:, I'm not asking for assurance or a guarantee -- which would clearly be unreasonable -- but for a more complete theory/plan. My belief is that for the foreseeable future, genuine research into the gender breakdown of Wikimedia projects will need to be done using survey-driven data, rather than computer-generated data. I simply don't see how an incremental uptick in self-identification will change that -- or how even a "strong suggestion" could lead to anything more than an incremental uptick. -Pete (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the rub. The gender "setting" does nothing except tag a value with he/him, she/her or null. That's all. One can think of it as a poor man's survey -- which makes sense for an all volunteer, non-profit entity -- or one may not. Unless there is a swell in support for doing one thing or the other, I'll be moving on I suppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we've probably talked this one out (and then continued talking for a while, I suppose!) Always find our discussions enlightening, though, thanks for sticking with it. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons user attempting to delete files used to verify documents at Wikisource[edit]

Please see commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Disruptive_and_frivolous_deletion_nominations_by_Ellin_Beltz.

Thank you!

-- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not panic. Commons keeps these files as they are within scope. I've speedily closed both nominations, see here and here. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not assume something about my emotions. And thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "please do not panic" was intended with this in mind, i.e. as a friendly hint that nobody will be hurt and the files will survive at Commons. There is no assumption involved. My apologies if this was misunderstood. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I love that book! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Explaining Wikisource, why it's valuable, and how to get involved[edit]

I've long been fascinated by how little-known Wikisource is beyond its core contributors, and I'd like to do what I can to help a broader audience understand it (and potentially contribute).

I just made a 12 minute screencast, focusing on grabbing images from old books. I'd like to make more like this -- for various audeinces (e.g., librarians, Wikipedians, etc.) and documenting some of the more technical pieces of Wikisource.

I'd be really interested to know what other Wikisource people think of this, and her any suggestions for improvement, for future topics, or pointers to existing resources that I may have missed. In particular, I've had some discussion with @George Orwell III: and @Hesperian: recently that relate to this; I would love to hear what you guys think.

Hope this is of interest -- and looking forward to any feedback and suggestions. -Pete (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done well, such videos could be a GoodThingTM. I'd be willing to help in whatever way I can, but not until June when my schedule will free up. There is already a facebook page for Wikisource, but it seldom has new posts, and I don't know who runs it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Well done, Pete. I enjoyed your presentation. There are also some works from wikisource placed on YouTube as I and others have done. I added music to those I did. However, I would have also presented a side by side photo of the yellow images with the cleaned images as I do in all of my own works with books and images. They are not printed yellow as we all know and the change to the proper contrast, color, &c is important in presentations like yours. Too, I have one blasted problem with some few images and that being how to remove those lines on an image that mess up the image -- they come from the left and right and sometimes are just splotches. How can the images be cleared of them? Does anyone know? I have done several books and lots of images. There are some excellent books worth saving and a photo "is worth a thousand words" I have skipped good books and went to other other books due to the bad images in uploaded books at various areas on Internet. I recall an excellent book on HathiTrust showing beautiful color plates of flowers that I had to skip because I will not use the messed up drawings in color. So that is a problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Most everything I can handle when it comes to images including colorizing for personal usage on coffee mugs I use. I can take twisted or bent forward, backward, &c. paper -> image -> and corrected those as well. So I would like to know if anyone on any wiki area knows how to remove those lines traveling to and fro ruining images.

AdamBMorgan also has a site where he was (still?) enhancing wiki works. So too with Erasmo Barresi of Italy using YouTube. Links to the front of Wikisource.org work well. So too with Facebook when enhancing and advertizing Wiki areas.

All of these things presented are not new but neither are they promoted.

Your voice comes across as very clear which is also important. Still, you showed all yellow images while speaking of making wiki areas better. I hope that all of this feedback helps all of us who love wiki areas. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. @William Maury Morris II:, you make a good point about showing a fully enhanced image. I did not intend in this video to show the full range of what is worth doing on Wikisource, I wanted to focus on the process of getting the original, high quality scan -- because accessing that is essential to any restoration work. But, in hindsight, I would have done well to explain more clearly what I was and wasn't covering. Maybe I could address that with some edits to the blog post. (Unfortunately, I find editing the video rather intimidating -- I think it can be done, but it seems complicated to do it well. I may give it a try. For this, I used Screencast-o-matic Pro -- I have tried a number of tools (see w:en:WP:WikiProject Screencast) and that one seems to be the best combination of cheap, easy, and fairly good. But I will probably continue trying others, and welcome suggestions on that too. A format that is easy to edit afterward would be especially useful.)

My friend Mike, who is not really a Wikimedian but has done some volunteer work for Distributed Proofreaders/Project Gutenberg, gave me some good feedback too, which I mostly addressed with the bullet lists in the blog post. I will definitely consider a screencast focused on image restoration, and if I make one -- or find a good one -- I'd be happy to link to it prominently from the blog post, YouTube page, etc. (One consideration is, I'm not really expert at it. I can do some things, but am not sure I'm the best person to do a demo. I'm also not too confident with free software like GIMP, which is what I'd prefer to use if guiding others.)

I've seen @AdamBMorgan:'s blog, and have been impressed -- though I have not seen it lately. I will probably continue to do these on my own regardless, but would of course prefer to collaborate with others if there is interest. -Pete (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I always mention Wikisource to librarians—it seems like a slam-dunk to them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I also mention it to high-school English teachers. Such a teacher once asked me whether there was a Concordance in print for Moby-Dick. In response, I pointed out that Wikisource had an copy that could be searched electronically for free. It made her AP Literature class that much easier to run, and allowed her students to work on their papers from home. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, when you think or promote books like Moby Dick please remember that Matthew Fontaine Maury is mentioned in it (also 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea) and more than once in each book. The point I make here is those books were based on living persons to assist in book sales and fascination. M F Maury will be found on that easily searchable book (important since hard copies is not searchable) - Chapter44, bottom left, Melville writes of M F Maury and "charts" that people knew M F Maury was working on. Melville declares that it so happens that what he (Melville) has written has just been done by M F Maury of the National (Naval) Observatory when it is the opposite -- Melville inserted what Matthew Fontaine had already been working on and had just completed. This was done, perhaps, to promote Melville's book because Whale Charts did not exist as M F Maury created them -- so Melville writing about "Ahab" pouring over whaling charts comes from M F Maury's work on whale charts. It is the footnote of Chapter 44 which I have used for years as my email.

Image Quality[edit]

You asked about an example of an image on my Talk page. It was among the very images you used in your presentations. Those are all yellow but I also noticed, as I have many times when enhancing images, you showed several examples. I refer to
Wilson Price Hunt
"Wilson Price Hunt" on mouse over)

His image is ugly even though it has been worked on. See those lines in that image? That is what I was writing about. Too, it looks like the fellow has been blurred a bit but I don't know. I don't think a man would look as bad as he does regardless of just the lines problem. It looks like an image that was done on a painting with the canvas lines showing. Anyhow, you spoke and have written about "enhanced images" and this is not an enhanced image as I think of the word enhanced.

I admire your work with the "Screencast" on YouTube and elsewhere and hope that you will work up something on true image enhancement. I fully understand you could not, or rather I could not, do everything in one presentation. The old "Windows Movie Maker" also works well as opposed to "Screencast" of which I am not familiar. They are all tools with which to explore and work with. I did 2 works on Cycles on YouTube using Windows Movie Maker, a very old program. I Used images from WikiSource, created a compilation, and added proper music -- it is important that music goes well with subject matter. It promotes that specific book here on WikiSource because I also added text on colored background and showed links to WikiSource.Org

Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ON WikiSource to promote WikiSource The Cycle Industry (1921) by W. F. Grew ( —Maury (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) )

Two Mixed versions:-

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgRFe1NfNJB3811QB8R-4Hg

example of moire reduction; look at file history

(Arbitrary outdent) @William Maury Morris II:, thank you for all the detail. Just a quick response for now, more later: the lines you are referring to are called moire. Worth reading up on. I do know some techniques for reducing it; they work well on some images, not so well on others. It won't work well on this example (short version: because the dots are relatively large. Also, though I refer to this as a photo in the presentation, I'm sure it's a painting, which I think explains the ugliness!) Here is an instance where I (mostly) removed the moire, and then darkened and sharpened the image. I'd be happy to do a short screencast to illustrate what I did. I'm out of time this morning -- more later. -Pete (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work also on 'de-halftoning' images (see commons:File:John_E._Hurst_Building,_Baltimore.jpg for example). The appearance is an artifact of halftone printing methods), but I don't claim to be at all adept at it. The method I am aware of involves using a (usually very slight) Gaussian blur to blend the dots into a more averaged appearance, and then an unsharp mask to restore an 'in focus' appearance. This usually seems to end up with an image that looks slightly blurry, however. The are probably better methods, and some kind of presentation on how to do it would be a very good thing. Revent (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically the process I use -- with one addition, in cases where the halftone dot is of similar size to the scan resolution. Then, I will first increase the image size, so that the blurring happens over a more forgiving array of pixels. (For instance, if your scan is at 200dpi, and you have an 80dpi halftone screen, you might want to do this. If you have an 80 dpi halftone screen and a 1000dpi scan, it might not be worth it. I do this more by "feel" than by science, I wish I could comment more specifically on when you want to do this!) -Pete (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Scaling up the image is something that I had not considered... I admittedly have not done this a lot, just for a few images where someone asked because they appeared really bad in use. I agree very much, though, that it does seem to largely be a matter of 'feel' as to what parameters to use in the filters... it seems quite dependent on the exact image. I would say a higher scan resolution seems to have a huge impact on the results, so scaling up the image seems like quite good advice. Revent (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The moire (the technical name for the kind of halftone artifact this is) generally results from scanning (or printing) at a resolution that is not very compatible with the resolution of the dots used in the halftone process. As a general rule, the higher the scan (or print) resolution, the less likely there will be moire. But when the numbers are close enough to each other, things get pretty ugly. (Imagine the patterns you'd see if you look at a spinning bicycle wheel through a picket fence…same thing.) If the moire has already been introduced, a good amount of quality has already been lost; you generally can't fix it without blurring detail of the image itself. But, yes, bumping up the resolution before doing that blurring will help some. (Also, fooling with the radius etc. of the blur function is worth trying. I usually use trial and error to narrow it down to the minimum amount of blurring that eliminates the dots.) -Pete (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(nods) My attempts at this type of thing haven't been dealing so much with moire patterns themselves, per se, but simply cases where the actual 'half-toning' of the image itself created something that looked bad at typical resolutions, due to ending up sufficiently 'zoomed in' that the halftone 'optical illusion' failed. An actual true 'moire' pattern itself would indeed be the effect of an interference pattern between the scanning resolution and the 'resolution' of the halftone... Gimp actually has a filter (descreen) that is explicitly intended to remove actual 'moire' patterns, but I have yet to experiment with it. Revent (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
To make what I mean a bit more clear, you can have a moire pattern in the actual fullsize image itself (due to scanner artifacts) or a moire pattern visible in resized images (due to a harmonic with the frequency of the halftoning and the resizing ratio). The method I mentioned would work for 'de-halftoning' a fullsize image (which would prevent moire patterns being visible in resized versions) but would probably be unsatisfactory if there were actual moire patterns in the fullsize version (from the scanner). Revent (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right -- thanks for that important clarification. Sometimes it's moire we're dealing with, other times it's simply the halftone dot itself -- and there are subtle differences in how to handle each. Very cool to know Gimp has a filter for moire -- I will give that a try. -Pete (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, @Revent:, I think the Tabitha Brown example above illustrates your point nicely. I blurred it enough to get rid of the halftone, but there is a rather subtle moire pattern in the background. I certainly wouldn't want to blur it to the point of eliminating that, as that much blurring would obscure many of the facial features. But in that case, the moire is minor, so it's not a big deal. -Pete (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the original has both halftoning and a faint moire (which is still visible in the final version).. you did (IMO) a very good job of removing the halftoning, but that didn't affect the actual 'moire' pattern itself. (I do agree that it's unlikely that an attempt to do so would be worthwhile.) That image is also a good example of the drawback that you have to watch for, particularly around the eyes... the final image is not actually 'less in focus', but has a tendency to appear so when looking at fine details.. you can counteract that to some degree with an unsharp mask, but it seems to improve the 'low-res' appearance while giving visual 'rainbow effects' on edges in the full scale. It's very much a matter of experimentation and practice, as you noted, which is why an actual video or two demonstrating the process would be great. In general, though, it seems like the 'best' answer in all cases is simply a higher resolution scan, as it then gives better results when removing the halftoning. Revent (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-11[edit]

15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Layout" option in index-transcluded pages disappeared[edit]

Recently two options have been added to sidebar section "Display options", one to show/hide page links, another to show them inside or beside text (the latter doesn't work), while the layout switcher disappeared. Is there a way to get back old page links and layout switcher? I use Firefox & Chromium (Ubuntu 12.04). --Nonexyst (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You're lucky. I just have a lonely "Display Option" section ...--Mpaa (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, now (though I use another computer with latest versions of the same browsers) it sets the layout to every Wikisource page. ----Nonexyst (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
i see someone was coding with the layout options. they disappeared for me from the 4th to the 10th. it would be nice to put a notice here, so we wouldn’t be guessing and working around. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Untangling the Web[edit]

Fascinating publication, if anyone hasn't come across this yet.

Could be a useful resource for archival and educational purposes, to add here to Wikisource with various subpages, etc.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Input for improving integration of Wikidata in watchlists needed[edit]

The following was a message asked to be distributed to communities, and relates to where the information, that we pull from Wikidata, is changed. For example, interwikis, VIAF, etc.

Hey folks :)

Data quality and trust is what we're currently concentrating on in the development around Wikidata. A big part of that is improving the integration of Wikidata in the watchlist of Wikipedia and other sister projects. I just opened a page to collect input on how we can improve it.

Wikidata:Watchlist integration improvement input

Cheers

—Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

For those who have an interest, it would be great if they could have a look. Comment there if you like, or we can comment here and provide a collective feedback. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-12[edit]

15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Index:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XII.djvu[edit]

No scans displayed in page view for me? Anyone care to take a look as it's only this volume which is affected..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Working fine for me too.Jpez (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Strange, because I still can't see pagescans. I get the text in the edit box, and if I click image I can see the page image.

It just doesn't seem to want to load pagescans for me when I click Edit. At least it's not a corrupt file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please rather than saying it works for you specify which OS/browser combination? It's not working on XP/Firefox 36.0.1ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Not working for me on Firefox/Chrome.--Mpaa (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Now working. No clue what happened.--Mpaa (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I thought you meant the pagelist wasn't showing in the index page for some reason. Scan resolution in edit mode was set to 0 on the index page. It's working fine now. Jpez (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to run a db query to find other Index pages with this issue, it seems a straightforward enough situation to resolve? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Page:US Patent 755840 (Bose's Microwave Apparatus).djvu/2[edit]

Erm where did the proofread tools option on the edit toolbar go? I wasn't informed that this was to be removed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You must be having local issues. All looks normal to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Two toolbars simultaneously ?[edit]

When in Page edit mode I see TWO TOOLBARS, one for the header and one for the contents, with no possibility to close the header as before.

Whoever is f**king around with the toolbars, please stop. This is a completely stupid idea. — Ineuw talk 01:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I also am seeing the two toolbars but the weird thing is that it is only on some pages and also the proofread tools are missing when it happens. Jpez (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Giving examples would help. Also telling us what preferences that you have set, in this case for toolbars. Every Tuesday is software update day, and there can always been unintended consequences with changes taking place in one part that can effect us with Proofread Page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Enable enhanced editing toolbar" set to enabled seems to cause this for me (XP/Firefox 36.0.1.) Turned it off and the problem went away. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this the problem of having both toolbars enabled? If so the preferences should be changed so only one of them can be enabled at once.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A very quick check suggests the 'Enhanced editing toolbar' needs to be overhauled to be compatible, it also not displaying the Special Characters box when that option is selected (XP/Firefox 36.0.1) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Zoom in/out option is also gone for me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I also unchecked enhanced editing toolbar and at least I can do some editing now (I can use OCR, zoom in out etc. Before these weren't available.) so the problem must be something with the enhanced editing toolbar as ShakespeareFan00 pointed out. I am using firefox with Linux. Jpez (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: I must assume that you enabled the legacy toolbar, or were both toolbars checked? — Ineuw talk 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, this problem occurs in Windows (7) Firefox versions 36 & 37 and Internet Explorer 11, but not in Chromium (Chrome) or Opera. It also works correctly Linux/Xubuntu in all browsers (FF, Chromium and Opera).— Ineuw talk 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: I'm sorry I don't even know what the legacy toolbar is. In preferences in the editing tab I unchecked (Enable enhanced editing toolbar) and (Show edit toolbar) is checked, with these settings I have what I assume is a more basic toolbar which at least allows me to do some editing. I tried enabling the enhanced toolbar today to see if maybe it would work and what I noticed is that the first time I load a page to edit in the page namespace everything is fine. If I refresh the page or click on any other page the problem with the two toolbars and no proofread tools persists from then on. I tried logging out and back in and the problem was still there. I tried restarting firefox and the problem was still there. I tried rebooting my computer and the problem was still there. But as as I said there was no problem with the first page I tried to edit this morning. I also tried upgrading firefox from 29 to 32 today but that didn't help. Jpez (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: Sorry for not clarifying "Show edit toolbar" is the legacy toolbar. I assume you are using Windows. The problem is with our Mediawiki software update of Tuesday. It was mucked up somehow. The Mediawiki programmers test the software on all browsers, and this problem may have to do with local modifications to our English Wikisource. The problem is that in other browsers and Firefox in Linux work fine, (see my comments above). There is nothing we can do until someone in the know will look at it. — Ineuw talk 04:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries @Ineuw: I'm not complaining I'm happy enough with the basic toolbar myself, I'm just trying to help whoever may be able to troubleshoot. I'm using Linux, not windows and still have the problem. Jpez (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

T88027 seems to be the root of the problem(s) along with a few subsequent tweakings/changes. Looks like in the attempt to "log" WikiEditor based edits, some(?) one(?) of the module dependencies no longer jibe. Adding the 'schema.Edit' module for those who customize WikiEditor in some fashion seems to rectify the problem however. I added it to the OCR gadget as well but I'm not sure if that will halt the double loading of the WikiEditor toolbar or not. More when I find it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hinky djvus at EB1911[edit]

Most of them still seem fine but Volumes 26 and 27 at least have stopped working. There are still pages (like this one that are proofed and accessible via link but our pages can't get to them. — LlywelynII 03:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that we have some references appearing with <ref name="nn">. Finding it is harder! Looking and looking. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The djvu file is jiggered and needs reloading. EB1911_-_Volume_26.djvu ‎(0 × 0 pixels, file size: 95.2 MB, MIME type: image/vnd.djvu)billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
On a separate note re the work. You seem to be doing a whole lot of wikilinks that are not apparently native to the work. Generally the practice that we have had in such encyclopaedic works is to wikilink where there is a q.v. indicator. If you utilise so many template transclusions you will also run into the template expansion limit and it will simply stop. Also, for intermediate pages, there is no requirement to use section tags, we would generally only use section tags on partial pages on the first or last when using <pages>. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-13[edit]

15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Text justification[edit]

I've noticed when downloading texts in the past in the epub format and reading them in my ereader that the text alignment was not justified. I didn't pay much attention to it until today.

Personally I don't like reading the main text of a text that isn't justified and it puts me off to be honest, also as we try to remain as pure and true to the original text as possible I think this is a major issue. If text is justified in the original (which I believe most texts if not all are) I think it should also be transcluded as such.

I didn't pay much attention to this issue until today when I did the first transcluding of some chapters I've been proofreading where I saw that the text alignment when transcluded isn't justified. You can see the difference here where I tried justifying the text with the justify template I found. From pages 1 to 8 I've used the justify template in their page namespaces and from 9 to 24 is how the text is usually transcluded. When justified the text looks quite nice when transcluded except that the pages don't blend as you can see when each page commences. Is there a way to fix this?

I had a quick search and couldn't see this issue being discussed before. I think this an issue that we seriously need to look into.

There are positives and negatives. You've mentioned one of the positives: a professional and readable look. However, one of the negatives of text justification is that, when there are images present or when the reader is using a mobile device with a narrow screen, the justification forces giant gaps in the text, which looks unprofessional. This is one area where the change in medium from physical book to electronic one means that we really cannot be faithful to the original. An electronic book cannot (and should not) enforce a certain page width and certain line breaks. We do not have the technology to insert hyphenation and other features that allow justified text on the printed page to look the way it does. If we want justification, my feeling is that it should be an option selectable by the end-user, and not something forced onto every reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: As far as I know, at present there is no rule here which prohibits justified text. I am not going into the pros and cons, because your primary question seems to be about how to do it. This should not be done in the page namespace, that won't transclude properly. But this can be done in the main namespace, by wrapping the transclusion as under:
<div style="text-align: justify;">transclusion</div>

Hrishikes (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hrishikes I'll give it a try, though I agree with EncycloPetey that it shouldn't be forced on end-users. I think it would be good if we could toggle it on off somehow. Personally I don't mind some of the extra long spaces that come sometimes from not being able to hyphenate random words automatically, I prefer this to the left aligned text which just doesn't look right for me and bothers me. Jpez (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Hrishikes' suggestion is a good idea. The result would be to wrap divs with different text-align attributes inside this overall one. There is a way to carry justified text over between pages in the Page: namespace using the alternate forms of {{justify}} covered in the template documentation. However, my preference is to keep the {{justify}} template for particular layout purposes e.g. for a quote at the beginning of chapter like I did on Page:The red and the black (1916).djvu/265. For general mainspace use, justified text is already built into Layouts 2 & 3. It's just on Layout 1 (the default) that a ragged right margin appears. See Help:Layout for more info. Quite how the various layouts translate into epub I'm not sure. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Even though I've played around with the layout button I never noticed that it justified the text until now. I was hoping it would come out justified for the epub export as well but sadly it didn't. Hrishikes suggestion worked fine with the text I'm working on and hasn't bothered any of the other formatting. I also tried exporting it to epub and it looked very nice on my ereader which is a nook simple touch. Jpez (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to add: the official EPUB 3 Accessibility Guidelines state: "Avoid justifying text, as the uneven spacing that occurs between words can reduce the readability for some people." The Haz talk 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Every reader is accustomed to justified text, that being the norm for printed matter, which everyone has read, at least in school. Apropos ebooks, those marketed online by Amazon and Barnes & Nobles generally have justified text. I have a huge collection of English ebooks in epub/mobi/pdf/pdb/lrf/rgo and other formats, all of which have justified text. Unjustified text may be convenient for a few readers (I don't know), but that is certainly not the majority position, else the Amazon people would have taken note. Unjustified text is generally adopted for original online writing; but Wikisource works are generally recreations of printed matter, so there is not sufficient reason to deviate from this universal feature of the original books. Hrishikes (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hrishikes. I just quickly scrolled through a few commercial ebooks I have on my Nook simple touch and only found one single hyphenated word, which word was 're-arranging'. Of course all books were with justified text. Although I used Hrishikes suggestion to justify the text on the book I was working on, and it looked beautiful on screen and on the epub I downloaded and I was very happy, I ended up removing the text justification in the end since not everyone agrees with using it. Jpez (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview[edit]

I figure to be trying to start a regular "column" in the w:Wikipedia Signpost detailing activity at other WMF entities, maybe initially on a one-story a month basis. The first such piece is an interview with, pretty much, anyone interested in taking part, which can be found at w:User:John Carter/Wikisource column. I figure to eventually start one such userspace page per relevant WMF entity which can be reused for future columns on either a regularly-scheduled or as needed basis. This first piece may not run for several weeks yet, which might not be to our disadvantage, as it gives those involved a chance to put together a piece which they could use to best promote wikisource and/or encourage other wikipedia editors to become involved. Any input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I am comparatively new here, joined this site last year. I am working in some specific areas, info here. If you are interested, you can send me some questionnaire. Hrishikes (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, the Signpost interviews are supposed to include comments from as many people as possible. So @Charles Matthews: who I know is active in both projects would be very useful as well, as would anyone else who chooses to respond. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Forth Bridge[edit]

Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu is nearing completion - some people have already helped out enormously, and further help with proofreading and correctly transcluding it would be brilliant. There are still some tables that need to be converted at c:Category:Forth Bridge (1890) tables, but that and the plates at the back is the only thing keeping it from completion. Ostrichyearning (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting blog post: VIAF and Wikidata[edit]

For those who have an interest in the linking metadata (authority links) that we utilise on author pages (predominantly) and works, there is an interesting blog post where VIAF discusses their decision to migrate their linking from English Wikipedia to Wikidata. The announcement and the resulting comments are worth perusing.

For Wikisources it should have an advantage as the Wikidata landing page displays all existing articles (where linked) on the Wikimedia platforms, and that it includes any links that we have for English and other language Wikisources. This is instead of someone landing at English Wikipedia, and then needing to stumble upon the enWS link.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This change increases the value of our authors/works being added to Wikidata, and emphasises that we need to continue to develop our strategy for data additions. One could say that we have been somewhat reactive in doing tasks at WD to our works/authors, and pretty much leaving the WD people to determine what we have and how. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is great! The Haz talk 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-14[edit]

15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New Gadget[edit]

For those of you using the Vector skin, you might to try out a new gadget Sidebar Flat-list (mid-way down the Interface section). It takes the group of sidebar menus on the left and makes them series of collapsible flat-lists along the top instead. Please report any problems & feedback welcomed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar flat-list gadget (Vector only).png

  • I'm using this and it's a keeper for me. It's nice to have more space to the left when editing or reading. On one of my computers which has a more square screen the three menus get cluttered and because of lack of space 'Language' goes on top of my user name is not selectable. On my laptop which has a wider screen everything is fine. Jpez (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There's not much I can do about that - the damn Language portlet is structurally different at the core compared to the other groupings. If I had it my way, it would not be part of the flat-list but in the attempt to keep it "simple", that's the way it works out for some layouts. Suggestions welcome. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice! That area was a mess but now it is clean allowing more room for editing. Looks like the garbage was taken out. :0) Thanks George Orwell III, in haste for grocery shopping, —Maury (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Glad you like it (& hope it works for you headache free:) -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not bad! I like it, though of course I wish it loaded before the sidebar to avoid the hiccup. The Haz talk 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish I knew how to resolve that too (though its not all that bad imho)!!

The standard, un-collapsed sidebar of "portals" (bullet lists with the bullet hidden) are part of the Vector skin itself. And Vector is relentless; it is determined to render the sidebar and load all the damn .css & caching that normally comes with it no matter what I tried (you'll note that even with the flat-list gadget enabled, the sidebar is still remains 'King' on your User: preferences and similar Special: pages). The best I could do was let it do its thing and then disassociate the lists from all that 'built-in routine' afterward (thus the occasional twitchiness depending on what you are doing/clicking).

Again, suggestions welcome! -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

By not bad, I meant it's good. ;-) And yes, I understand that it's not possible. The "Language" choice in the "header" is now cut off by the gear icon, but it's also not something I care about. I'm still trying it out. I had some tools in the sidebar I used, but not regularly. The biggest difference I noticed is that the editing screen is larger so the scan image is larger, leading to having to scroll down farther to save the page. (Interestingly, the edit box is shorter than the preview pane.) I'll probably end up sticking with it. At this point I don't miss the sidebar and I really like the cleaner look. The Haz talk 04:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That damn Language menu wasn't part of the original SideBar so of course its slightly different than the grand-fathered ones. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'Language [heading] being cut-off by the gear icon' however. Its always been to the right of the heading (Language) and all I did was try to mirror that in the associated css. Please throw up a pic if you have the time. If not; no worries. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It does this for me as well, and it seems to only be on pages that don't have any links to other languages. If there are links, it says "In other languages", but if there are no links it says "Langua". Here is a picture. (Firefox 37, Chrome 41; Windows 7 x64; works fine in IE 11)—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Image The Haz talk 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to AuFCL, an adjustment to the .css has been applied and should resolve that heading-icon overlap. Please let me know if it did the trick for you folks too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Great for me. Thanks! The Haz talk 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
works for me in firefox & chrome, chapeau. (love the sidebar disappearing hiccup);-> Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


┌─────────────────────────────┘
This is what mine looks like using firefox and Linux. I'm not bothered by it though. JpezScreenshot.png

I Just noticed it's only on the main pages, Scriptorium, Main page, Community portal etc. Jpez (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, something like that has/had to do with the Vector typography refresh, certain monitor/screen DPI's and your browser's 'window width' behavior. In case you haven't discovered it yet; if you manually shrink your browser's window width, it will should eventually trigger the point where the Vector skin has some sort of boundary where the main margins shrinks by .5em (or so) all around. Unfortunately, that is where the skin determines the gadget's line of menus (should) jump to its 'reserve' (a .css padding trick) and fit right in between the personal menus it just encroached upon on the right and the top of the vector tabs & search box beneath it. Normally -- one would think -- as soon as the left content begins to overlap the right content, the overflow attribute and whatever it is set to would determine the point where the gadget line on the left can no longer co-exist with the personal menu on the right. I can't figure out how to get around that oddity or if it is even possible given the skin's design. Of course, I would love the trigger to be when the gear icon on the left touches the user icon on the right so the overflow setting could kick in and "move" the gadget line out of the other line's space. If anybody knows any better or how to rectify this, please speak up:)

On top of that, if you're stuck with a display screen optimally rendering/set at ~768 to ~860 DPI (approx.), you are more likely to see stuff like that being the @media rules in the core wiki software is now primarily geared for over ~968 DPI view-screens under standard desktop view (I don't exactly know what the "story" is with this under Mobile Mode). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know what the problem is (but I don't currently have any good ideas how to fix it.)

Please bear with me; the following is likely to be boring to those in the know; and pretty incomprehensible to anybody else. I am only listing it all out in hopes it might ring somebody's bells.

All of the page "editing header" (from "WikiSource" down to the "Search" box) lies within an HTML DIV with id "mw-head". The "mw-head" <div> further encapsulates four subordinate <div>s respectively with ids:

"p-panel"
from "Navigation" to the "language-gear" icon
"p-personal"
from "User-id" to "Log out"
"left-navigation"
from "Page-type" to "Talk"
"right-navigation"
from "Read" to "Search" box
In an ideal world these four inner <div>s lie at the four outer corners of "mw-head" but when the screen-width is too narrow for them to do so the effect Jpez observed results.

As of this moment I do not understand the logic which lays them out and assume the fault lies somewhere therein. AuFCL (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In short, the "logic" gets hosed because of the Wikisource logo. Look to reveal the currently hidden div#mw-page-base & div#mw-head-base and you'll start to see how "odd" the layout really is. In short, the first 10 or 11 ems of the left hand side "should" be part of left-navigation at some point in the original design but the proper accounting for those 10/11 ems (e.g. be a true child of some layout-logical parent element) never seems to take place. The same is basically also true when it comes to the footer area (div#footer) but with an extra spoiler; a H2 meant (I guess) to serve as the 'heading' of the entire sidebar of "navigation" menus resides down there instead of where one would think it should go -- up top; between the bottom of the logo and the first menu (navigation) itself -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Apart from dazedly agreeing I cannot offer much. div#mw-head-base just /looks/ wrong but my brain has really shut down about two steps before this. My feeling is that one or the other of these two hidden divs /possibly/ ought to be expunged from the DOM altogether but all my experiments to date have really dire side effects and are not really worth pursuing. AuFCL (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I can save you some time; don't bother tinkering with stuff like those two as they are too embedded in the skin itself. The problem -- the way I see it -- "starts & ends" with the div holding the logo stuff; it not only being completely unique compared to the divs that come after it but it also happens to be the first sub-division of the sidebar in the skin by design. Just delete or hide div#mw-navigation (with no gadget applied) and you'll see the expected "snap left" of the main body recovering that initial 10/11 ems on the left does not happen -- not without further manual manipulation/intervention. Even that could easily be overcome if the logo and it's div containment (the reason for the 10/11ems) was factored out of the equation so to speak.

Conversion of all the sidebar menus into a single horizontal flat-list was not all that hard to do once the div dealing with the logo was pruned from the rest first. So unless there is a way to make that logo div fall inline (without the need for any "pruning") as the left most (1st) flat-list menu while retaining the originally intended logo-like links & properties found in the skin, I wouldn't begin to speculate where or how to address these lingering quirks in the final-rendering/expected-behavior; that would be the true waste of time here imo.

Of course, User:s can whack the logo and recover the space for use by the gadget on their own via their own customizations of the "base" css but for me, I know if I don't resolve this "the right way" (if at all), things will just get worse later on down the development road somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Category per author[edit]

Hi. I noticed that some Authors have also dedicated Categories. See Category:Elizabeth_Blackwell and Category:Emily Blackwell. I find it a bit redundant but I am unsure where WS stands with respect to this. Do we need them?--Mpaa (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't need them. Help:Categorization covers the purpose of categories on enWS. Neither of these people are topics or genres, so they do not need categories. Point 6 of WS:Style guide#Author pages explains how to use Author pages to list works that are about an author for whom we have works by. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will clean it up.— Mpaa (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Footer in mobile view[edit]

I apologize if this has been brought up before. I searched the archives but couldn't find mention of it.

I was trying out the mobile view yesterday. Besides the normal formatting issues that come with the mobile view, I noticed that the navigation footer is missing in the main namespace. In my personal opinion, I would consider this a must for Wikisource. Right now if you read to the bottom of a page, you are required to scroll all the way back to the top of the page to move on to the next page. Is this something that is already being fixed, or does a request have to be made? Thanks, The Haz talk 15:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Its just one of the many things on my "to-do" list but addressing this first requires resolving some "layout" issues with the mainspace navigation header template itself. Spend some time in Mobile Mode and really go through some of our existing body of mainspace works; you should soon come to realize (as I have) the current previous & next design in our header frequently skews any hope of consistent, "centered" title, author, & like info that the header template typically retains for us. And since the footer template is based on the header template (in a nutshell), there is little to no point in porting the footer over to mobile mode until these mainspace navigation header "[re]design" questions are resolved in a desktop view forum first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I realized what you meant after I wrote it. Hence my other mention at {{block center}}. I'm not sure how much play we have with the CSS used here, but what about using a stylesheet that has media queries to create a responsive header template? I know we can't write the queries inline (nor would I want to), so I'm asking if we can write them somewhere else to adjust the CSS for navigation. The Haz talk 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would LOVE to "pretend" this is day one of Wikisource and start with a "clean" primary .css file (or sets of .css files) to accomplish what you've describe and more. And I have taken some small steps with that 'ultimate' goal in mind already; I have recently moved all the pre-existing .css files to be less old-school, unintelligent MediaWiki:Common.css centric and more resource loader "governed" -- primarily aimed to result one day in a refined & streamlined MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css file (then leading to 2 or 3 other .css files as needed).

The main hurdle I'm now faced with - to put it bluntly without intending insult - are the 2 or 3 dozen old-timers around here who still use (or think they use) all the current crap currently defined in our .css files. Beyond that is the issue with Mobile Mode; it uses a completely "foreign" skin than any desktop view can AND no .css file or files are automatically employed from desktop view to mobile mode -- and THAT means whatever "we" do here needs to styled inline to remotely render the same over there for the immediate future (the perfect example - our mainspace navigation header... even after my recent re-write to be all div based!!). Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh well that's perfect then. No need to change a thing. ;-) I'm surprised that Mediawiki uses a completely separate CSS file for mobile. I never even thought to check that. There's only so much we can do inline, and of course that itself would be a hack. I can't say I have any ideas, but that's mainly because I don't know what's possibly on this site and what's not. I'll have to think about what to do here. The Haz talk 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikisource project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, we could use all the help we can get. BD2412 T 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Resident Mario: If no one else puts their hand up, happy to talk to you via Skype (though it is not on by default); strine-warning and at +10 time. You can always catch me in IRC as sDrewth, #wikisource or #wikimedia-stewards and ping me — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the response. I'm a little busy at the moment with other projects, but I plan to return to this one in a little while. I'll let you know :) Resident Mario (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for changing the toolbar icons?[edit]

The advanced toolbar icons of bold and italics has undergone yet another change. B to A and italics went from I to A. Why? Who was bothered by this? — Ineuw talk 21:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm at the point now where I manually force most everything WikiEditor toolbar-button wise but my first recommendation regardless is to wait until after the usual Tuesday wmf core update to pass before filing a bug over it (it might fix itself). At the same time, you might want to triple check your language settings and your universal language selector font & input settings (access typically found via the little gear icon next to Language menu for the latter two; user prefs for the former). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, and will wait as suggested. — Ineuw talk 04:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I welcome the return of the prodigal I and B Thanks GO3. — Ineuw talk 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-15[edit]

15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Charinsert macrons are in the wrong order[edit]

I would like permission to correct the Charinsert macrons' character order (and any other character set) because now they are in reverse order.

It should be capitals first and followed by the matching lowercase as nature intended. Furthermore, if possible, I would like to insert two spaces between the characters using &nbsp&nbsp if possible, because some are too close to another to click on.

If given permission, all I need to know is where they are. — Ineuw talk 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Current and incorrect: ā Ā ǣ Ǣ ē Ē ḕ Ḕ ḗ Ḗ ī Ī ō Ō ṑ Ṑ ṓ Ṓ ǭ Ǭ ū Ū ǖ Ǖ ȳ Ȳ
  • Proposed and correct: Ā ā Ǣ ǣ Ē ē Ḕ ḕ Ḗ ḗ Ī ī Ō ō Ṑ ṑ Ṓ ṓ Ǭ ǭ Ū ū Ǖ ǖ Ȳ ȳ
I cannot give you permission but I can point you towards the 'Macrons': line here if that is what you sought? AuFCL (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw:: I assume you are objecting to the placement of lower case before upper case, but be aware that there is no consistent order in the Charinsert right now. Some listings have the uppercase letters first, while others have the lowercase letters first. The macrons line is just one of those that has lower case given first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks AuFCL. The issue came up for me because there is no order and there should be. Uppercase, followed by lowercase. I was looking for characters and it confused me. This problem existed with the Hebrew character order as well until someone from the language group corrected it, because I didn't know that it's a site matter. I don't mind re-ordering them and not asking someone else to do it.— Ineuw talk 01:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
For the ordering, it seems like your preference rather than rightness and wrongness. It is a listing plain and simple. Nature isn't involved. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Sorry to disagree but there is a character order (in Unicode). Lowercase Ä ä always follows the uppercase. There are two issues here. Somebody assembled the list backwards and also included characters with combinations of diacritics on the same row, like the combination of a macron and an accent -> Ḗ.
I propose that these esoteric combinations should be listed on their own rows or separated as the Accents are: acute and grave.
I've taken the initiative and reordered some character sets, but some are "made up" and don't exist in the Unicode set. e.g: the lowercase ẗ with diaeresis has no matching uppercase character but it can be combined, in fact most characters can be combined diacritics. — Ineuw talk 05:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules[edit]

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Questions about some formatting changes since being somewhat inactive[edit]

1. When editing in this space, I see double editing toolbars (not customized). My customized toolbars are correct in the Page namespace, however... @George Orwell III:?

2. See how there is now an "extra" line space between a poem title and the text when using {{block center/s}} as opposed to {{block center| See: Page:Poems, Household Edition, Emerson, 1904.djvu/77 for differences. Not sure what changes have been made to bc/s & e, but it makes text formatting inconsistent now...

3. Lastly, in two sections of my User page (Top section & Activity section), using a pipe used to separate items/text into two columns. This no longer is the case. What is an easy alternative to using a pipe (if that's the right term)?

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. That's not just on Wikisource. It seems to be an issue Wikimedia-wide. I definitely get it on Commons and WP as well. However, it was mentioned above if you want to read more.
  2. Fixed. Not sure why WS was putting in a line break there though.
    1. Just FYI, that template already has a title parameter, so you might prefer to use that instead anyway. See below for an example from the page you were referencing.
  3. Interesting. You were essentially hacking the fact that the template was originally based on tables. You will want to use {{multicol}} or {{div col}} to get actual columns. You may prefer to use {{Float left}} as that should handle what you're trying to do even more dynamically.
Promised example:
First line:
{{block center|title={{larger|BERRYING}}|{{fqm|'}}{{sc|May}} be true what I had heard,—<br />
BERRYING

'May be true what I had heard,—
Earth 's a howling wilderness,
Truculent with fraud and force,'
Said I, strolling through the pastures,
And along the river-side.
Caught among the blackberry vines,
Feeding on the Ethiops sweet,
Pleasant fancies overtook me.
I said, 'What influence me preferred,
Elect, to dreams thus beautiful?'
The vines replied, 'And didst thou deem
No wisdom from our berries went?'

The Haz talk 22:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I just changed your user page back to using tables for now (the quickest way to get exactly what you had). Feel free to change it to suit your needs. The Haz talk 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Renders great, thanks. And thanks for fixing bc/s and the titling, etc. suggestion above. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! The Haz talk 23:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hazmat2:But your recent tweak of block center now sends first/last line spacing askew. See poem above. In my opinion, block center rendered fine as it was... It was bc/s/e that had too much space... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that was Mediawiki inserting an extra paragraph mark. I've come across that before, but forgot to adjust for it when I thought I was actually fixing it. All set again. Thanks for letting me know. I triple-checked the two different templates and they both work correctly now. The Haz talk 23:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Good to go. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: As for the continued generation of non-customized, double toolbars - I'm giving things one more chance to see if anything in tomorrow's core update fixes things on this front all by itself. If not, I'll have to tangle with the developer bureaucracy a bit more forcefully to either fix it asap or revert the changes that introduced the behavior in the first place (and FYI - I will be calling for "back-up" from you folks if need be at that point as well). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you still seeing it? It went back to normal for me when the fix was rolled out yesterday or the day before. The Haz talk 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Verified. I just tried to reproduce double toolbar generation in just about every namespace and could not so it seems fixed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been seeing the double toolbars for a while now, but the ocr button is missing. Is it only me? Jpez (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding OCR button: it is there for me. Have you got OCR: Enable OCR button (top item beneath section "Editing tools for Page: namespace") checked in your Preferences? AuFCL (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's enabled, and what I've noticed is for the first page I load the OCR button is there, but after each subsequent page load it disappears. Jpez (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Which toolbar are you using; 'classic' or WikiEditor? If WikiEditor, make sure the 'show [classic] edit toolbar' option is not enabled in your preferences.

And fwiw, time is running out for both the classic & Wikieditor toolbars so "fixes" are likely to be fewer and farther in between in the future for one or both of the current editing toolbar interfaces. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

After playing around with the settings it turns out 'Enable wizards for inserting links, etc' option was to blame.' I disabled it and the OCR button is back. Btw I also I tried playing around with the 'live preview' and 'Show preview on first edit' options as I just saw them today and nothing changes either. I have neither a live preview and the or preview on first edit when enabled. These options would be very helpful if they are what I think they are. @George Orwell III: I am using wikiEditor.

Never mind after my first edit I figured out you have to click the show preview button for it to work. I thought the changes were shown as you type live. Also preview on first edit is working now for some reason and I'm happy. Jpez (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I know this is getting pretty far off-topic but I highly recommend ensuring "Live Preview" remains "off" for all users on WikiSource at least for the immediate future. This option has a very long bad reputation for interfering with both user and system javascript, causing obscure malfunctions in things like "Show changes" (during edit sessions) to messing up Index: page operation etc. etc. etc. Not worth the effort. Just search for "live preview" (on all pages) and you will for certain find plenty of bugs solved by turning this iniquitous option off again (Yep, I have been bitten! My 2¢.) AuFCL (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If there are more than two translations[edit]

The template {{Other translations}} is for situations where there are multiple translations for the same foreign work. But this template only provides for adding one other work. What's to be done if there are more than two translations? Can anyone tweak the template please, so that option is there for adding more works? I specifically refer to the three translations of the same work: Anandamath, Index:Anandamath, The Abbey of Bliss - Chatterjee.djvu and Anandamath (Aurobindo). Hrishikes (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the language being a (little) clumsy what is wrong with using several invocations of {{Other translations}}? (i.e./e.g. {{Other translations|Index:Anandamath, The Abbey of Bliss - Chatterjee.djvu}} {{Other translations|Anandamath (Aurobindo)}})

Please pardon if I have missed a fundamental point here. See below. AuFCL (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there should be more than one available in the template. The way it reads tells me that it points to a single disambiguation page that links to all the versions available. In this case, Anandamath should be a disambiguation page for the three translations. The Haz talk 03:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Hazmat2 here, with the exception that this is not a disambiguation situation rather it's a versions situation. The special header {{Translations}} should be used on the versions page that points to the various translations. See Help:Disambiguation and the notes at the templates for more. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I use the terms interchangeably. Also, the current text at Anandamath is actually titled "Dawn over India" as far as I know. Perhaps we can get a bot to move the pages and then use Anandamath as the "version" page. The Haz talk 04:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
See Agamemnon (Aeschylus) (and linked translations) for a specific example of how this can be handled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, this example is not specific for this case. There are only two translations in case of Agamemnon. A versions page is fine, but how to link to other translations above the heading of each translation? Repeated invocation of the template, as suggested by AUFCL, will render the language clumsy (as also noted by him). So my original question remains unanswered. Hrishikes (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I did answer your question. Did you look at the two linked translations, as I suggested? Both link to the versions page, where all other translations will be listed. This is the best possible approach, since the links in the individual translations will never need to be edited; only the versions page will need to have new items listed. This method will work for any number of translations without changing any templates or cluttering the space above the header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, got it. Thanks!! Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the wikisource policy about incorporation of amendments to Law pages?[edit]

Hi,

en wikisource has page Indian Copyright Law (Indian Copyright act 1957), I want to incorporate year 2012 amendments to this statute. So what is the wikisource policy whether do I start a new page with act with incorporated changes or do I incorporate changes to current page Indian Copyright Law its self. What is the wikisource policy in this respect ?

Mahitgar (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no particular policy to cover this situation. However, it would be best to keep as separate pages. The reason for this is that works that became PD under the original act would have done so with different rules to those that pertain today. I suggest that the root page becomes a disambiguation page and the 1957 version of the act is moved to Indian Copyright Act 1957. The page with the 2012 amendments could be called Indian Copyright Act 1957 (Amended 2012). Have there been other amendments to the act prior to 2012? If so, it is worth considering making pages for the interim versions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Additional opinion. We publish what was published. So the 1957 Act is published as it is. If the later Act is published as amendments then we publish the amendments, that said they always generate a new copy of an Act so that would also be publishable in its entirety. We don't update the pages to reflect the law as it is on the day, these are not active legislative pages, they are copies of works at a point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Beeswaxcandle & User:Billinghurst
1) I suppose we are clear now about So the 1957 Act is published as it is. If the later Act is published as amendments then we publish the amendments this part as agreed.
2) I agree that we need to add User:Billinghurst's above staement to a legal disclaimer for wikisource.
3) I understood User:Billinghurst's statement but still I am not clear enough about following part where logically these are two different things but are not they practacally almost the same >>"....that said they always generate a new copy of an Act so that would also be publishable in its entirety. We don't update the pages to reflect the law as it is on the day, these are not active legislative pages, they are copies of works at a point of time."<
@ User:Billinghurst on this I am waiting for your reply since it will help me improve my understanding.
And now there are some practical things also :
A) When I closely studied (my perception remained that), on internet 'a new copy of act Indian Copy Right Act 1957' after incorporation of 2012 amendment changes is not available (now I have updated it on en wikisource), and most of the laymen are effectively referring to out of date i.e. old version which is neither the complete original of 1957 (since it is not available on the internet) nor the one updated after 2012; These laymen include our own indic wikipedian community too.
B) Here at en wikisource when I closely studied Indian Copyright Law document I realised it is not an original copy of 1957 but effectively a copy of effective copy of the act from 1999 to 7th June 2012 that is the period between two amendments. Which I updated for 8th June 2012 that is effective date of 2012 amendment.
C) For copyright amendment act of 1957, 2012 amendements are 5th amendment law. @ User:Billinghurst if I am correctly understanding your position that "...that said they always generate a new copy of an Act so that would also be publishable in its entirety.." Here do you mean to say that we shall have (six+five= 11) versions of this act that is first of 1957 version then we have 5 versions after each amendment and 5 versions generated versions after incorporation of amendments at each of 5 amendment acts, do you mean to say that all these 5 generated versions be imported in totallity from somewhere but wikisource editors should not update them themselves.
d) i) If the case is as said in above point C; I will need to revert all the changes made by me at Indian Copyright Law in last couple of days. ii) Since indic wikipedians (and for that matter most of Indias online common population) does not have another option for updated copy If I have to remove my changes from here and shift to wikipedia namespace on some wikipedia.


@ User:Billinghurst after taking into account above aspects please do guide me what course of action do you suggest me.
Thanks and warm regards ( and sorry for my bit leanthy post)
Mahitgar (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)



1992 amendment: http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1992.pdf. Change the year and you will get other versions. Hrishikes (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That is realy great info (which I did not know) As you said It seems original of 1957 version is at http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/textofcentralacts/1957.pdf this link 1957.pdf is 800+ pages and also 1992.pdf also some 300+ pages and my net or pc is slowing down before comple download. I would be happy if some one can help to break (long PDF) and upload pdfs for individual acts on wikisource. That will be a good and usefull addition.
Mahitgar (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: No need to download. Send it to Internet Archive by using manual wildcard/pdf link option at toollabs:bub/ and after djvu file is created at IA, send it to Wikimedia Commons by using toollabs:ia-upload. Hrishikes (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: Yes check.svg Done Index:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu, Index:Indian Copyright Act (3rd Amendment) 1992.pdf, Index:Indian Copyright Act (6th Amendment) 2012.djvu, Index:Indian Copyright Act (5th Amendment) 1999.djvu, Index:Indian Copyright Act (4th Amendment) 1994.djvu, Index:Indian Copyright Act ( 2nd Amendment) 1984.djvu, Index:Indian Copyright Act ( 1st Amendment) 1983.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: It is very nice of you. Thanks for your valuable support and guidance.
Mahitgar (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-16[edit]

16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata property for letters[edit]

I just wanted to let everyone here know that there is a new property on Wikidata: addressee (P1817). I foresee its main use being for letters and notes, especially here on Wikisource. It should be self-explanatory, but I used it for Letter from Louis XIV to Count Tallard (Q19096740) as an example. The Haz talk 19:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CharInsert request[edit]

While proofreading Index:The history of the Bengali language (1920).pdf, I am facing problems entering Bengali script, because some characters are absent from the CharInsert: Bengali period (।), double period (॥) and vocalic l (ঌ). Can anyone please remedy it? Hrishikes (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, should we have something like English WP's {{Contains Bengali text}} in this case? It's not a standard script so not necessarily installed by default on computers in the English-speaking world. The Haz talk 14:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Bengali is a standard script, being the script of the fifth most spoken language of the world, also used for Assamese and Manipuri languages. In MS Windows, the Vrinda font contains Bengali. I don't know about other OS. Hrishikes (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Chinese is spoken by a few people as well but that was only standard in Windows within the past few years. I'm fairly certain Bengali is standard as of Windows 7, but I also painfully remember having to install it on any Windows versions before that (one of the reasons WP has that template). However, it was just a question for the crowd here. The Haz talk 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The font is available in Windows XP SP2 and above, as per here and here. As per my personal checking, it is available in Windows XP/Vista/7/8. I don't know if the situation is different in Western countries. However, I find no problem with the use of the template. Anyway, I would be obliged if anybody could help with the CharInsert. Hrishikes (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand. My apologies for not having been more specific. In the US versions of Windows, they were available as downloads, not installed as a standard. For recent Windows versions, it also costs extra (Pro version required) to use any but those as a system language, though that's obviously not applicable. I had to set up languages for my family that don't speak English which is how I came to find all this out. Of note, the few flavors of Linux I use (Ubuntu, Mint, and a few others) don't have them installed by default either. I'm just saying that a good number of people might see little squares instead of the correct script. That was my only point. However, I'm aware that this box also detracts from the "beauty" of the text. The Haz talk 16:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Details about Bengali script display in various OS available here. Hrishikes (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Try using this code it's just another supported font.৷,॥,ঌ {{lang|bn|৷,॥,ঌ|font=Siyam Rupali}}--Rochefoucauld (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A font template won't solve it, you still need to enter the character. I can pick the character from the character map while using laptop/desktop, but the problem arises when I am using android/mobile. Hrishikes (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are working in Windows I recommend you to download this free software Babel Map with which has all the Unicode characters, including Bengali and lets the users to assemble & copy and paste characters.— Ineuw talk 05:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't require the CharInsert when I am using Windows, as mentioned above. I can pick the characters from the character map. But the CharInsert is handy when using android. That's why I was requesting for inclusion of these characters in CharInsert. Hrishikes (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If you build the characters an admin will add it as a drop down selection. I would suggest add it to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-charinsert-core.js and tag with {{edit protected}} and/or stick a note here. I know that I don't have the knowledge to construct the list, but I do have the knowledge to insert it. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Billinghurst has just made the same offer I was about to. Just let us know exactly what should be in the list and in what sequence. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. List added at the end of the CharInsert gadget talk page. Hrishikes (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Refresh your cache and it should work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Still not getting it. The drop-down list is as before. Showing "Bangla" characters and not the new set added under the name "Bengali". May be the cache problem, which I seem not to be able to remove, after hard purge/null edit etc. Hrishikes (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm seeing it under Windows. Try Ctrl-F5 on MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
From context Hrishikes is asking for this addition to be made under wikiEditor, not Gadget-charinsert as Beeswaxcandle has kindly done. Is it worth consulting mw:Extension:WikiEditor/Toolbar_customization#Add_a_special_characters_page? AuFCL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I am talking about the drop-down menu available on clicking the "Special characters" button on the toolbar. The menu goes on as Latin-Latin extended-IPA-Symbols-......-Hebrew-Bangla-Tamil-..... and so on. The new set named "Bengali" is not appearing even after cache refresh and restoring browser to default. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
AuFCL is right (of course), we're looking at different sets of symbols. I don't usually use the wikiEditor toolbar and when I do, I've turned off the Special characters button. I'm using the CharInsert gadget (first one under the Editing tools section on the Gadgets page) and it's there that the Bengali characters list has been added. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Found it, thanks! Hrishikes (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

related: Character sets to be separate and centralized in the coming future. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

footer string - what to do?[edit]

While editing Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/207, I came across this string "VOL. LXXXI.—14." at the end of page. It is information about the publication issue. This string does not occur on every pages. What should I do about it? Help:Footnotes and endnotes offers no advice. --Siddhant (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It is volume info, not binder's info. So it should be retained in the footer, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a message to the binder to make sure that the fascicle beginning with this page is put into the correct sequence. Binder's marks are not required on enWS, because we are not duplicating the original appearance of a work, but rather are making its content available. That said, some editors are choosing to leave them in, so we need to check other volumes of this series to see what the PSM Project is doing. The equivalent page in Volume 31 (Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 31.djvu/221) has omitted the mark, so I recommend that you do so too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like User:EncycloPetey went ahead and did [86] edit. Thoughts? --Siddhant (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
We never keep it. Just omit it from the footer. I saw it on the page mentioned, but didn't want to re-edit the page.— Ineuw talk 03:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Have a look into the future[edit]

Take a look at the envisioned default skin of the future in a mock-up of the Winter Wikipedia article HERE (enter thru the prototype link). You can navigate away from that Winter article only so much in case that was not made clear & not everything "works" as expected either but its pretty robust as it stands today.

Some of it I like; some of it will likely cause us some grief; overall I think it is a net improvement. Thoughts? Reactions? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting but I didn't see any great value in it. I do not like it being "likely" to give us any grief unless it is something that can worked out in a fairly short time--about a month? Something of value in my view that would be a system of automatic transcription of an entire book into one downloadable file with all pages included. —Maury (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Lucky(?) for us, they seem to be "stuck" on the Wikidata --> languages part(s) and "progress" has pretty much come to a standstill as a result. One can never know if or when such log-jams become clear; diligently checking seems the only sure fire way to know what the latest status might be -- otherwise we'll find our fate out like we always seem to; a notification of a [massive] change just shows up here one day as humble announcement or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Right at this moment my internet connection is rather bandwidth-constrained. I am still recovering from having my eyeballs "bounced" by the incredibly clunky paint artefacts demonstrated on that page. Right this moment I think it might be unusable (also in my perversity I seemed to hit all the "Not Yet Implemented" interface warnings.)

I'll reserve final judgment for an occasion when a fairer test may be performed (but bear in mind how the thing behaves when not every user has South-Korea-standard connection speeds, Hmm?) AuFCL (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Egads, what an awful Wikipedia-centric idea. This would be highly detrimental to other projects, especially Wiktionary. This monstrosity should be taken out back and shot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well it is a mock Wikipedia article so I can't pass judgment based just on someone's favoritism but I was looking more at the general layout and element settings than anything so content specific as, say, the right-hand info-box overkill present. To me it looks much like Mobile Mode does now; basically -- it is also without "flex"-based margins but with a clunky static header. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-17[edit]

15:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help